From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23998 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 13:56:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 23984 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 13:56:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 13:56:17 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-44-89.inter.net.il [80.230.44.89]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DIP33798 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 12 May 2006 16:53:22 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 13:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060512124940.GB3860@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 12 May 2006 08:49:40 -0400) Subject: Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060512011730.GA26655@brasko.net> <20060512124940.GB3860@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:49:40 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:53:43AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here, exactly. > > Explaining why we did something in the past does not belong in the > > manual (except maybe in a footnote, if it is _very_ important to > > mention history). > > While I agree about "why", I think "what" we did in the past does > belong in the manual in some cases. Not so much for the CLI, which is > covered by most of the manual, but for the remote protocol and GDB/MI > where most everyone interested in them will be interested in supporting > multiple versions of GDB... In general, if some external package needs to support multiple GDB versions, their authors will need to look in the manuals of those older versions. In those cases where it is very important, the "what" should be in a @footnote. This reminds me: perhaps we should mention major incompatible changes in NEWS, suitably marked to the effect that they break backward compatibility.